We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and NSFOCUS Web Application Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools."The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"Checkmarx has helped us deliver more secure products. We are able to do static code analysis with the tool before shipping our code to production. When the integration is in the pipeline, this tool gives us early notifications on code fixes."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"Since we are using this tool for protection purposes we really appreciate the hybrid security abilities; the main idea here is that we powerful protection our application needs."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"It is an expensive solution."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"There is a need for expanded licensing terms and options. There's also a need for improved and more agile customization features. The user needs to be able to manage each policy as required; the functionality needs to empower the user. There should be a complete suite of desktop provider policies available to users. Overall, it needs to be more user-friendly."
Earn 20 points
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while NSFOCUS Web Application Firewall is ranked 43rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while NSFOCUS Web Application Firewall is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NSFOCUS Web Application Firewall writes "Offers Application Protection Against Web Attacks". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas NSFOCUS Web Application Firewall is most compared with .
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
